Gomes, Ruan CM

Jeannin, Pierre-Olivier

Lefranc, Pierre

Luciano, Benedito A.

Pegado, Raoni de A

Rocha, Filipe V

Sousa Alves, Luciano Francisco

English

International audienceSilicon (Si) power devices have dominated theworld of Power Electronics in the last years, and they haveproven to be efficient in a wide range of applications. Buthigh power, high frequency and high temperatureapplications require more than Si can deliver. With theadvance of technology, Silicon Carbide (SiC) and GalliumNitride (GaN) power devices have evolved from immatureprototypes in laboratories to a viable alternative to Si-basedpower devices in high-efficiency and high-power densityapplications. SiC and GaN devices have several compellingadvantages: high-breakdown voltage, high-operatingelectric field, high-operating temperature, high-switchingfrequency and low losses. This paper provides a generalreview on the properties of these materials comparing someperformance between Si and SiC devices for typical powerelectronics applications. Based on studied information, lineof progress and the current state of developing, SiC seemsto be the most viable substitute in high power and hightemperature applications in the mid-term of Si, due to thefact that the GaN is still used in a reduced number ofapplications

HAL Descartes

SIC Power Devices in Power Electronics: An Overview

Ohio Oil & Gas Commission

Case Western Reserve University School of Law

BEFORE THE OIL & GAS COMMISSION GARY HARRIS & GROUP MAINTENANCE, Appellants, -vs-DIVISION OF MINERAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT, Appellee. Case No. 714 Review of Clnef's Order 2003-11 FINDINGS, CONCI,IISIONS & ORDER OF THE COMMISSIDN Appearances: Bruce Smith, Counsel for Appellants Gary Hams & Group Mamtenance Corp., Mark G. Bonaventura, ASSistant Attorneys General, Counsel for Appellee Div1Slon of Mineral Resources Management. Date Issued: Oc tobe-r ~ 7, ~ QJ 3 BACKGROIIND This matter came before the Oil & Gas Commission upon appeal by Gary Harris and Group Maintenance Corp. [Group Mamtenance] from Chief's Order 2003-11. ChIef's Order 2003-11 demanded the forfeiture of bond m the amount of $15,000, for Group Maintenance's failure to plug or produce certain oil & gas wells. The three wells at issue are the Dzun #2 Well, the Schwan-Adams #1 Well and the Bailey #1 Well. On June 25,2003, tlns cause came on for hearmg before four members of the Oil & Gas Commission. At the commencement of hearmg, Counsel for Appellants informed the COmmIssion that Gary Harris was unavailable for hearing on this date. Therefore Appellants' Counsel moved for a contmuance of the hearmg. Tins motion was opposed by the DiVIsion, winch had appeared with WItnesses. -1-Hams, Group Mamtenance Appeal #714 The Comrmssion Chairman denied the request for continuance, but allowed Appellant Gary HarrIs to partIcipate by telephone. Mr Harns was contacted by telephone and particIpated Via speaker-phone for the duratIOn of the hearmg. Counsel for Appellant HarrIS did attend the hearing, and was able to fully examme Mr Harns. Counsel for Mr. HarrIs was also gIven the opportumty to confer privately with Mr. HarrIS, when requested. At hearmg, both the Appellant and Appellee partIes presented eVIdence and examined witnesses appearing for and agamst them. ISSIIE The issue presented by this appeal IS: Whether the Chief acted lawfully and reasonably in ordering the forfeiture of bond for Group Maintenance's failure to plug or produce certain wells. THE I/AW 1. Pursuant to O.R.C. §1509.36, the ComrmSSIOn will affIrm the DiVIsion ChIef iii the CommissIon fmds that the order appealed IS lawful and reasonable. 2. O.R.C. §1509.07 provides mter alia: ... [A]n owner of any well, before being issued a permIt under sectIOn 1509.06 of the ReVIsed Code, shall execute and flle WIth the division of mmeral resources management a surety bond conditioned on compliance with the restoration requirements of section 1509.072, the pluggmg requirements of section 1509.12, the permit provIsions of section 1509.13 of the Revised Code, and all rules and orders of the chief relating thereto, m an amount set by rule of the chief. The owner may deposit WIth the chief, instead of a surety bond, cash in an amount equal to the surety bond as prescribed pursuant to this section or negotiable certifIcates of depOSIt or irrevocable letters of credit, .. having a cash value equal to or greater than the amount of the surety bond as prescribed pursuant to this sectIon. -2-Harns, Group Mamtenance Appeal #714 3. O.RC. §1509.071 provides for the forfeIture of bond, stating: (A) When the chief of the divIsIOn of mineral resources management finds that an owner has failed to comply with the restoration reqUIrements of section 1509.072, pluggmg requirements of section 1509.12, or permIt provisions of section 1509 13 of the Revised Code, or rules and orders relating thereto, the chief shall make a finding of that fact and declare any surety bond filed to ensure compliance With those sections and rules forfeited m the amount set by rule of the chief. The chief thereupon shall certify the total forfeIture to the attorney general, who shall proceed to collect the amount of the forfeIture. 4. O.RC. §1509.12 provIdes in part: Unless written permission IS granted by the chief, any well which is or becomes incapable of producing oil or gas in commercial quantities shall be plugged. When the chief fmds that a well should be plugged, the chIef shall notify the owner to that effect by order in wrIting and shall speCIfy m such order a reasonable time WIthm whIch to comply No owner shall fail or refuse to plug a well within the time specIfied in the order. . 5. O.R.C. §1509 0ICK) defines an " owner" as: .. the person who has the right to drill on a tract or drilling unit and to drill mto and produce from a pool and to appropnate the oil or gas that he produces therefrom eIther for himself or for others. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. Gary Harris is the President of Group Maintenance Corporation. Group Mamtenance began operations in 1986. At that time, the company acquired 80 - 90 oil & gas wells. Several of these wells have been sold or plugged. -3-Harns, Group Mamtenance Appeal #714 2. Group Maintenance owns the Dzuri #2 Well (Ashtabula County permit 440), the Schwan-Adams #1 Well (portage County permit 1790) and the Bailey #1 Well (Ashtabula County permit 460). 3. The Dzurl #2 Well, the Schwan-Adams #1 Well and the Bailey #1 Well are covered by Group Maintenances' blanket bond of $15,000. This is a cash bond. 4. The Dzuri #2 Well was produced in 1996, 1997, 1998 and 1999 ThIs well was also produced for 3 days m 2002 and 3 days in 2003. However, the 2002 and 2003 production was not in a commercIal quantity In August 2000, the DiviSIOn Inspector Issued a Notice of ViolatIOn to Group Maintenance, citing pollution and contamination and noting that the well was idle. The Notice of Violation required Group MaIntenance to plug or produce this well by October 6, 2000. ThIs was not accomplished. On December 7, 2001, Chief s Order 2001-83 was issued to Group Maintenance, reqUITIng that the Dzuri #2 Well be either plugged or produced. The well was not plugged, nor was It produced m commercial quantities. The Dzurl #2 Well IS currently Idle and incapable of commercial production. Equipment necessary for production at this well is either not present, or if present, is inoperable. The vegetation surrountling the well site IS overgrown. Group MaIntenance did not comply With Chief s Order 2001-83. Group Mamtenance IS attemptIng to sell thIs well. 5. The Schwan-Adams #1 Well was drilled in 1984, and was produced In the early 1990' s. In June 1996, Group Mamtenance and Gary Harris entered mto a Consent Judgment m the Court of Common Pleas for Ashtabula County, Ohio (case no. 95 CV 466), agreeing to produce the Schwan-Adams #1 Well by November 15, 1996, or plug this well by December 15, 1996. The well was not plugged, nor was it produced. Group Mamtenance did not comply with the Consent Judgment. The Schwan-Adams #1 Well is currently Idle and incapable of commercial production. EqUIpment necessary for production at this well is either not present, or if present, is moperable. The well site is covered with overgrown vegetation. -4-Harns, Group Mamtenance Appeal #714 6. The Bailey #1 Well has not been produced since 1986. In November 1995, a Notice of Violation was issued to Group Maintenance, which ordered the Bailey #1 Well to be plugged or produced by December 1995. This was not accomplished. In June 1996, Group Maintenance and Gary Harris entered into a Consent Judgment in the Court of Common Pleas for Ashtabula County (case no. 95 CV 466), agreeing to plug the Bailey #1 Well by November 15, 1996. Tills well has not been plugged. Therefore, Group Maintenance did not comply with the Consent Judgment. The Bailey #1 Well is currently Idle and Incapable of commercial production. Equipment necessary for production at tlns well is either not present, or If present, is moperable. The vegetation at the well SIte is overgrown. Group Maintenance IS attempting to sell this well. 7. On January 31, 2003, the DiviSIOn Issued Chiefs Order 2003-11. Tills Order found that Group Maintenance had failed to plug or produce the Dzuri #2 Well, the Schwan-Adams #1 Well and the Bailey #1 Well. Chiefs Order 2003-11 demanded the forfeIture of Group Mamtenance's $15,000 blanket bond. The forfeiture order, was appealed to the Oil & Gas Commission by Gary Harns and Group Mamtenance, and IS the subject of the immediate deCIsion. 1. Gary HarrIS or Group Maintenance IS the owner of the Dzuri #2 Well, the Schwan-Adams #1 Well and the Bailey #1 Well. 2. The Dzuri #2 Well, the Schwan-Adams #1 Well and the Bailey #1 Well are currently idle and incapable of commercial production. -5-Hams, Group Mamtenance Appeal #714 3. In December 2001, Gary HarrIs or Group Mamtenance was ordered by the DiVISIon of Mineral Resources Management to plug or produce the Dzuri #2 Well. Gary Harris or Group Mamtenance was requIred by the terms of a Consent Judgment filed m the Court of Common Pleas for Ashtabula County in June 1996, to plug or produce the Schwan-Adams #1 Well by December 1996. Gary Harris or Group Mamtenance was requIred by the terms of a Consent Judgment filed in the Court of Common Pleas for Ashtabula County m June 1996 to plug the Bailey #1 Well by November 1996. None of these wells were plugged or produced wIthIn the desIgnated time periods. 4 Appellant Gary HarrIS, Group Maintenance did not present any evidence to establish that the issuance of Chief s Order 2003-11, requiring the forfeiture of Group Mamtenance's blanket bond, was unreasonable or unlawful. DISCI ISSION Before bemg issued a permIt, the owner of any oil & gas well in the State of Ohio must post a performance bond. The purpose of the bond is to ensure that well owners comply WIth the laws and rules regulating the production of oil & gas. See O.R.C. §1509.071. O.R.C. §1509.071 specIfically states that this bond IS conditIoned upon compliance with the pluggmg requirements of O.R.C. §1509.12. O.R.C. §1509.12 requires the plugging of wells that are mcapable of producing oil or gas in commercial quantities. The parties do not dispute that Group Maintenance is the owner of the Dzurl, Schwan-Adams and Bailey Wells. Therefore, Group Maintenance's responsibility for these wells is established. -6-Hams, Group Mamtenance Appeal #714 It is also undisputed that Group Mamtenance was ordered to plug or produce the Dzuri Well by January 2002, and did not comply with this mandate. Group Mamtenance was required to plug or produce the Schwan-Adams Well by December 1996, and did not comply with this mandate. Also, Group Mamtenance was ordered to plug the Bailey Well by November 15, 1996, and did not plug this well by that date. The evidence at hearmg revealed that for a substantial period of tIme, these three wells have been idle and incapable of commercIal production. To determine if a well IS mcapable of commercial productIon the DIVIsion Chief, and thIs Commission, may look to certam cntenon. See State v Baldwjn Producing Corp, case no. 76 AP-892 (Ct. of App. for Franklin Cty., March 10, 1977). The lack of surface and m-hole equipment necessary for commercial production indicates that a well is incapable of production. See State v BaldwlD Producing Corp , supra. TestImony and photographs presented at hearmg show that these wells are not equipped for commercial production. The Chief and the CommissIOn may also consIder how recently, and m what amounts, the wells have been produced. See State v Baldwjn ProduclDg corp, supra. The evidence at hearing indicated that the Dzun Well was produced to a limIted extent m the 1990's and, more recently m 2002 and 2003. However, the recent productIon was not in a commercIal quantity The Schwan-Adams Well was also produced, to a limited extent, during the early 1990's. Group Maintenance has never produced the Bailey Well. The non-productive conditIon of the Dzun, Schwan-Adams and Bailey Wells VIolates O.R.C. §1509.12. And, the failure of an owner to comply with the plug or produce requirements of O.R.C. §1509.12 is' grounds for bond forfeiture under O.R.C. §1509.071. Therefore, the issuance of ChIef s Order 2003-11, forfeiting bond, IS both lawful and reasonable. -7-HarrIs, Group Mamtenance Appeal #714 ORDER Based upon the foregomg findings of fact and conclusIOns of law, the Commission hereby AFFIRMS the DIvisIon's Issuance of Chief s Order 2003-11, forfeiting the bond of Group Maintenance. ABSTAINED WILLIAM 1. TAYLOR Chairman ~ BENITA KAHN, Secretary ~(1~f4uw--M RILYN NNIS INSTRIICTIONS FOR APPF.AI, This deCISIOn may be appealed to the Court of Common Pleas for Franklin County, Within thirty days of your receipt of this decision, in accordance With Ohio Revised Code §1509.37. DISTRIBlmON: Bruce Smith Certified Mail #: 7000 0600 0028 2172 6131 Mark G. Bonaventura Inter-Office Certified Mail #: 5929 -8-

Appeal No. 0714: Gary Harris & Group Maintenance v. Division of Mineral Resources Management

Alves, Luciano Fs

Gomes, Ruan Cm

Luciano, Ba

Hal - Université Grenoble Alpes

SIC power devices in power electronics: An overview

Archive Ouverte en Sciences de l'Information et de la Communication

Alves, Luciano FS

Luciano, BA

https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1187&amp;context=oil_and_gas

Appeal No. 0714: Gary Harris & Group Maintenance v. Division of Mineral Resources Management

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

HAL Descartes

Case Western Reserve University School of Law

Hal - Université Grenoble Alpes

Hal - Université Grenoble Alpes

Archive Ouverte en Sciences de l'Information et de la Communication

Archive Ouverte en Sciences de l'Information et de la Communication